Template talk:Legendary Pokémon

No, no, no. The legendaries are not categorised by their interrelationships but by the stage they can be obtained in game, and their characteristics. (Also, I don't support the Dialga/Palkia/Giratina triad theory.) - 振霖T 09:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added that categorization (or at least what I believe to be true... far as D/P goes, I just followed what I knew from the guys above in RBYGSCRSE) to the top of the columns, and colorized the boxes that the Pokémon's names are in to basically represent their or their type's color. What do you think of it? Tom Temprotran 08:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Lugia and Ho-Oh: Mascots only?

Since both of them are in the same boat as Groudon, Kyogre, and Rayquaza, being before the Elite Four in one version and after it in another, I figure they should just be in the mascot column. Tom Temprotran 02:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Suicune

Suicune, to my belief, goes in the Trio box not the Mascots box. It was part of the trio first. TinaTheKirlia ♥ 15:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Plus, it doesn't make much sense to list it twice on the same template. --PAK ManTalk 15:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Über

What the hell is Über? Ü is really a German charackter ^^ What do you mean with this? MewX 21:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't know how to pronounce the 'Ü', Uber is pronounced like 'oober', so.. yeah.. Tinaδ♫ 21:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Allright, I found this on WP. The German Ü is actually similar pronounced to an english Y... However ^^ Why are Darkrai etc. counted as Über while the others aren't? I thinknearly all of them are Über..?! MewX 22:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Odd.. well, Darkrai's put in the 'Uber Event Legendary' pile, and it shares this pile wih Deoxys and Arceus, since all the other event legends are in the 'cute' pile.. Tinaδ♫ 22:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WHY is Phione in this thing???

It's misleading-people will think Phione is a legendary! And NO, there is NOT any proof of it yet, so I suggest we leave Phione out of this template until it can be proven conclusively that it is or isn't a legendary. --Glitch and Official Pokémon. There is no real difference between the two. In my opinion, the two should be considered equal!-- quoted by Missingno. Master 12:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It is considerd by what? 75...80% of people that it is a legendary because it is you know
BRED FROM ONE!

Be that as it may, that doesn't PROVE anything. Legendary Pokémon are only supposed to be one per cartridge w/o trading (you can breed more Phione from Phione or Manaphy), and have good stats (Phione's base stats are the same as Glalie's). I'm looking for irrefutable, undeniable, and concrete proof of whether or not Phione is legendary. Confirmation from Nintendo, ability to be used during the PBR legendary ban, ect., ect., ect.! People all thought Rotom was legendary, because it had good stats and legendary battle music, but as Pokémon.com confirmed, Rotom is NOT a legendary. Now, I'm not saying outright that Phione is not a legendary, I'm only saying that if it is, something screwy is going on here. --Glitch and Official Pokémon. There is no real difference between the two. In my opinion, the two should be considered equal!-- quoted by Missingno. Master 12:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection?

I think this should be unprotected, Phione has been confirmed as Legendary now, so yeah.. (Unless someone decides that Giratina is going to be the third game mascot, and then they keep adding it over and over *coughs a bit*) Tina☆♫ 17:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And HOW has it been confirmed a Legendary?PokeManiac102 17:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there was a post on Pokémon.com saying Phione is a legendary. JmathTalk 18:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Fanon terms

Yeah, but they distinguish the two types of event legendaries well. --FabuVinny|Talk Page| 21:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Layout

This template is wider than the usual page width, which makes it a little annoying on some pages... Shouldn't we use a smaller font like on most other navigation templates? I'd do it myself, but it's protected... --ElectAbuzzzz 17:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sol also made one for this.. see here. ►Ҝəυzø8 14:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Phione

Phione is still not confirmed legendary or non-legendary. It should at least be put in a new section, something like "debatable". - unsigned comment from Missingno. Master (talk • contribs)

As already stated above, Phione has been confirmed to be a legendary Pokémon by Pokémon.com--Sher-e-Bengal- 12:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Should this by organised by generation instead of region?

I say this because some of the pokemon listed, mainly the trios, are found in multiple regions. Also some of the Pokémon don't even come from the region they are listed in, for example Manaphy comes from Almia/Fiore not Sinnoh, Jirachi and Deoxys aren't found in Hoenn, and Mew isn't in Kanto. Jmvb 11:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove Phione, please

Take a look at Phione's talk page. It's confirmed to be not legendary. I'd do this myself, but the page is still protected for some strange reason. - unsigned comment from Missingno. Master (talk • contribs) 11:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

All that page says is that the failish Pokémon.com released several contradicting answers. Just because the recent one was a "no", does not mean it's the right one. It just means that it's their most recent brainfart. --electAbuzzzz 14:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

They would not have put it into print, let alone in a guidebook that probably millions of people own by now, if they weren't certain of it. On a website, sure, as they can easily change their minds (as we've seen for ourselves!), but in print, that's a different story. Besides, their previous contradictory answers don't even exist anymore, as Pokemon.com no longer has a mailbag. Why, it's almost as if they're now sure that Phione is not a legendary to the extent that they didn't want people to realize that they once beleived the contrary to be true! Look, if you're really still unsure, why not just put Phione into a special "debatable" column or something? - unsigned comment from Missingno. Master (talk • contribs) 14:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh, by that token, we'd have to move Allegra back to "Maki", Maury back to "Katsumi", and Kai (movie) to "Dai (movie)" (just plain "Dai" is now a disambig) on the sole basis that the charac::ters in question no longer have English names because the source that revealed them is no longer around. If that were to happen, we'd also have to put down that the dub did not give Moose a dub name because the source that distinctly said he kept his Japanese name is no longer around. Just because the Mailbag is no longer around doesn't mean whatever stuff it revealed is no longer relevant. As far as I'm concerned, you're just strapping more C4 to Pandora's Box, and by unhiding what you did, you're more than likely to have started the very edit war you were seeking to prevent. --Shiningpikablu252 16:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a big freakin' difference. There's no recent official source overriding what the mailbag said about the movie characters' names. There IS an official source, in print, made by the same company, no less, overriding what the mailbag said about Phione's legendary status, however. And I am not trying to cause any trouble like this. I am, like any good Bulbapedia contributor, attempting to change certain aspects of a certain article to reflect the facts presented to us by an official source. In other words, I am trying to improve the pedia's accuracy and quality. - unsigned comment from Missingno. Master (talk • contribs) 19:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Still doesn't change the fact that you don't represent the consensus. For all we know, that book could be full of snafus like the book some people used to try to convince us that Rotom is a legendary--against a Mailbag-based consensus, for the record. Just because a book's got an official seal doesn't mean it's accurate. --Shiningpikablu252 04:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Zekrom and Reshiram

Shoudldn't these two be added to the list now?? --S2daam 08:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No leggendary

Phione isen't a leggendary pokemon, someone must delete Phione of the template, I can't because the page is protected.
--RAZIEL 17:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? We've even asked Pokemon.com to clarify, and it is. ht14 17:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Victini

This little legendary needs to be added to the Isshu part --S2daam 20:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Kerudio

It's currently being Romanized as Keldeo. Can we change the template to match? --AndyPKMN 13:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Now Phione REALLY needs to be removed.

Take a look at Talk:Celebi (Pokémon). Phione has finally been confirmed beyond all doubt to not be legendary. I'd remove it myself, but the page is STILL protected for some strange reason. - unsigned comment from Missingno. Master (talk • contribs) 22:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I imagine it's still locked for this very reason: so people can't go gung-ho in changing information at the drop of a hat. Luna Tiger * the Arc Toraph 22:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

But we have confirmed that it is not legendary. It's not just someone randomly deciding that it's not, it is fact. We have one dead source telling us that it is legendary, and two live ones, one in a game and one in a guide, telling us that it is not. Because the only argument against has been taken down, it is possible that by now it would have been changed, so it cannot be used as evidence. --SnorlaxMonster 11:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The old template is still in use. Which one of these upgrades is better?

New outline - Discussions

We need to reach a consensus over what we will use to update the template, it's been months without a decision being made in this matter. Opinions go in their respective sub headers.

Vertical

I support this one, because it's the outline that the new templates are following, and we should focus on steadiness, not to mention it's the best looking one. Masatoshitalk 15:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I prefer this one too. The alternate vertical is stretching horizontally too much. —♥Jellotalk 21:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I prefer this one. It also follows the same style as {{NPC}}. The horizonal is just plain ugly, and the alternate vertical is too wide and looks really disbalanced when you compare Kanto to Unova. --SnorlaxMonster 04:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh there ain't no other way, vertical all the way, it's on the center track baby, it was born this way yeah. --P S Yライダー☮ 06:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Alternate vertical

I personally think this one looks the best. I'm not too bothered, just as long as it's not that ugly horizontal one... XVuvuzela2010X 15:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I prefer this style, only because I think long templates look better than tall ones (long templates clutter the bottom of pages less compared to tall ones), and the horizontal is, as stated, kinda ugly. Luna Tiger * the Arc Toraph 15:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This one uses less pagespace and seems to have less whitespace than the above. The vertical template is terrible. Who the heck designed it? —darklordtrom 07:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I like this one the best, but I think that it could use the menu sprites next to the name of the Pokemon, just to make it look a little better? Jakeul200493 13:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Horizontal

Other comments

What I don't like is that they all are sorted by region, which is not really accurate. Legendary Pokémon appear in multiple regions, and should really be sorted by generation. This wouldn't change where the Pokémon are on the list, just the names of the groups. --SnorlaxMonster 07:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could list every legendary Pokémon in every region they could be obtained. It would be helpful, but potentially messy. —darklordtrom 07:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There's changing region names to generations, referring to when they first appeared. tc²₆tc26 07:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That's what I was suggesting. I think this is the most logical solution, and easiest to navigate. --SnorlaxMonster 07:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

New Template, 2 Edit Requests, and Phione

Can we decide on a template? There's been no discussion since May. Also, the current template should not be hidden, seeing as how its still in use. And can someone remove the br clear="all" that appears at the end of the current template, I think that's what's making a space appear between this template and the Super Smash Bros template in the navigation template at the end of Deoxys's page.

And what's Phione's current status*? I think it should be added, but with a note like this: Phione*- unsigned comment from Vuvuzela2010 (talk • contribs)

Phione HAS to be in the template. The fact that it isn't normally obtainable in the games (you need a event Pokémon first) and many official sources consider a legendary is enough to warrant its placement in it. - Ericss 17:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that there are just as many official sources saying that it isn't. However, I think what Vuvu suggested is best. --SnorlaxMonster 17:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Rotom

Okay, if Phione is here, then I think Rotom should be too, under the same disputed category. This is because it pretty much fits the bill for a legendary, only one in the game, can not breed. It also commonly gets mistaken for a legendary. ☆TheSolarDragon☆ 22:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

First, Rotomcan breed. Second, commonly mistaken for a legendary is not the same as legendary, and Rotom is not legendary. Its base stats are far lower than those of any other legendary in all of its forms, and there aren't legends about it either. It's an in-game event Pokémon, like Snorlax. --DarthZekrom 01:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

There has never been any evidence that indicates that Rotom is legendary. Phione is referred to as both legendary and non-legendary by official sources, whereas the closest thing Rotom has is an error in the Pokémon Ultimate Handbook (which was corrected in the updated version). --SnorlaxMonster 07:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Order

Why are all of the Pokemon in National Pokedex order except for the Sinnoh Legendaries? Shouldn't they be in order too? Pokemega32 19:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Should be categorized by generation, not region

Sorting them by region doesn't make as much sense, as certain Pokemon aren't actually caught in those regions. Deoxys is native to the Sevii Islands and Manaphy has never been obtainable outside of the Ranger regions. These should be sorted by generation instead. Pokemega32 (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that. Many Pokémon can be caught in multiple regions: Birds, Beasts, Regis, Weather trio, creation trio, lake trio etc. so it makes more sense to have them by generation. ☆TheSolarDragon☆ 20:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Considering that the Generation VI legendaries are already added and we still don't know the region's name yet, it would at least make sense for now, I suppose. Though I'm assuming you mean generation introduced, seeing that some are available in multiple games as well as regions.(Caption Obvious, to the rescue!) ----NateVirus(Talk|Contributions) 20:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think sorting them by generation makes more sense. If it does happen, it would also need to be changed on the Starter Pokémon template. Torpoleon (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"Generation VI" should be changed to "Kalos"

As stated here, Kalos has been confirmed as the name of the region for X/Y. To keep it consistent, shouldn't the "Generation VI" at the bottom of this template be changed to "Kalos"? ~SirUmbreon (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Mythical?

The event-exclusive Pokémon are now officially considered "Mythical" rather than legendary, maybe it could be subcategorized by that? We could also put "disputed" for Phione. However, that might be covered by Template:EventExclusive. Which would be better, to label "Pokémon" as Mythical in that template or subcategorize this one? We should also consider that the "event" model could potentially be discontinued in Generation VI in favor of DLC, as Spike Chunsoft has already done with the new Pokémon Mystery Dungeon. But if we change this one, we would need a way to do it without making it messy again. TorchicBlaziken(talk•edits) 20:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Includeonly

Can I ask if <includeonly>[[Category:Legendary Pokémon]]</includeonly> could be put in the template? Thanks. — Reshi643 20:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Zygarde

Could Zygarde please be added to this template? Thank you. Miles(talk) 00:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Diancie

She was announced by CoroCoro. I added it to the Legendary Pokémon page and I'm pretty sure someone is making it its own page, can it be added here now? Nutter Butter (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Mythical vs. legendary

We've finalized the distinction between mythical and legendary Pokémon in Talk:Legendary Pokémon, so should we remove all "Mythical" Pokémon from the template? Or should the template be called "Legendary and Mythical Pokémon"? Dancing Dragonite (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Split request

Since we now treat "Legendary Pokemon" and "Mythical Pokemon" as two separate things in most places on the wiki (rather than a single "Legendary and Mythical Pokemon" thing), this template should be split into a "Legendary Pokemon" template and a separate "Mythical Pokemon" template. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll agree with you on this given the different subject matter. -Tyler53841 (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I actually don't think two separate templates are mandatory. As templates are not statements of how we "treat" something here, and considering Legendary and Mythical mon are still related, I even think a single template makes more sense (navigation-wise etc.). I would personally not like to have different templates for Mew and Mewtwo, for example.

What we could definitely do, though, is to somehow highlight the differences, what's Legendary and what's Mystical. There could be better ideas, but maybe we could try to differentiate them by two "columns" within this template (that's a different "split request", I guess), or maybe just by introducing some italics? Nescientist (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)